Abstract
A methodology of argumentation and a perspective of incredulity are essential ingredients of all intellectual endeavor, including that associated with the art and science of medical care.Traditio argumentum respectus (tradition of respectful argumentation) as a principled system of assessing the validity of beliefs, opinions, perceptions, data, and knowledge, is worthy of practice and perpetuation, because assessments of validity are susceptible to incompleteness, incorrectness, and misinterpretation. Since the latter may lead to ambiguity, uncertainty, anxiety, and animosity among the individuals (patients and physicians) involved in such dialogue, objective analyses and criteria are desirable. A tradition of respectful argumentation is a means to this end—to maximize objectivity and minimize subjectivity as part of decision-making processes and to preserve the integrity of the participants in a patient-physician relationship. During such discourse one must always be cognizant of fallacious arguments—material, verbal, and formal fallacies—since they compromise the validity of assertions. This essay summarizes a classification of fallacious arguments, by definition and by example, predicated upon the intellectual tradition of Occidental Society; and advocates a tradition of respectful argumentation to nullify them.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bentham J: “The Book of Fallacies.” InA Bentham Reader (Editor: Mack MP), New York, Pegasus, 1969.
Lukasiewicz J:Aristotle's Syllogistic from the Standpoint of Modern Formal Logic. Oxford, Claredon Press, 1957.
Rodning CB: The Physician's Preceptorial Role in the Development of Critical Analytic Skills.Amer. J. Surg., 1986,151: 624–625.
Ross WD:Aristotle's: Prior and Posterior Analytics: A Revised Introduction and Commentary. New York, Garland Pub., 1980.
Shannon JP: “The Tradition of Respectful Argument.” Reprinted inAlumni News, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota, May, 1962.
Sidgwick A:Fallacies. A View of Logic from the Practical Side. New York, D. Appleton and Company, 1884.
Stenzel J:Plato's Method of Dialectic. (Translator and Editor: Allan DJ), New York, Russell & Russell, 1964.
Toulmin SE:The Uses of Argument. Cambridge, University Press, 1964.
Wheelwright PE:Valid Thinking: An Introduction to Logic. New York, Odyssey Press, 1962.
Dawes, RM, Faust D, Meehl PE: Clinical versus actuarial judgment.Science, 1989,243: 1668–1674.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Note. Part I of this paper, subtitled “Leadership of a Physician,” appears in Vol. 13, No. 2, Summer, 1992; and Part III, subtitled “Negotiation,” will appear in Vol. 13, No. 4, Winter 1992.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rodning, C.B. Coping with ambiguity and uncertainty in patient-physician relationships: II.Traditio argumentum respectus . J Med Hum 13, 147–156 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01127373
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01127373